Perhaps it is now time for the moderators to show some spine and either call Pravoslav09 to account, or close this ridiculous thread.

Why should we? What harm has he done?

I have thought about this question and this is how the harm seems to me.

What is being presented is untruthful and therefore it is harmful because all that is opposed to reality and truth is by definition harmful.

The question then arises of culpability and the spiritual harm that redounds on the poster.

1. The poster genuinely believes the material he is posting is 100% true. In that case the sin falls into that rather unique category of sin which the Orthodox call "involuntary sin." In other words, the sin was not intentional but nevertheless it has inflicted a wound or it will eventually inflict a wound. It may lead to more harm and sin in humankind and the universe. For example, some of the enquirers here may read the anti-Russian articles and believe them to be true and Satan may use this to cast them into despondency and turn them away from further enquiries into the Church. It is these down-the-track consequences of "involuntary sin" which renders it spiritually negative and dangerous.

2. The poster is aware that the material is untrue but he may feel moved to post it anyway, out of a variety of personal motives. e,g., he may have some grievance against the Russian Church. In this case the posting of such material results in direct harm to the poster and does not contribute to the healing of whatever is biting at him.

Well, those are just my 2 cents worth, trying to answer the question of "What harm has he done?" The answer to Peter's question is the fruit of experience as a parish confessor. Others may have different views and equally valid ones, if they care to share them.

Perhaps it is now time for the moderators to show some spine and either call Pravoslav09 to account, or close this ridiculous thread.

Why should we? What harm has he done?

I have thought about this question and this is how the harm seems to me.

What is being presented is untruthful and therefore it is harmful because all that is opposed to reality and truth is by definition harmful.

The question then arises of culpability and the spiritual harm that redounds on the poster.

1. The poster genuinely believes the material he is posting is 100% true. In that case the sin falls into that rather unique category of sin which the Orthodox call "involuntary sin." In other words, the sin was not intentional but nevertheless it has inflicted a wound or it will eventually inflict a wound. It may lead to more harm and sin in humankind and the universe. For example, some of the enquirers here may read the anti-Russian articles and believe them to be true and Satan may use this to cast them into despondency and turn them away from further enquiries into the Church. It is these down-the-track consequences of "involuntary sin" which renders it spiritually negative and dangerous.

2. The poster is aware that the material is untrue but he may feel moved to post it anyway, out of a variety of personal motives. e,g., he may have some grievance against the Russian Church. In this case the posting of such material results in direct harm to the poster and does not contribute to the healing of whatever is biting at him.

Well, those are just my 2 cents worth, trying to answer the question of "What harm has he done?" The answer to Peter's question is the fruit of experience as a parish confessor. Others may have different views and equally valid ones, if they care to share them.

Certainly valid points, but no reason to silence Pravoslav09 by locking this thread as LBK suggested we do...

Here are some statements ffrom various times in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. They refute Pravoslav09's presentation of the history. He writes as if there were a Russian Church Abroad which was a different and somehow "purer" version than the one which "apostasized" in May 2007 when it united with the Moscow Patriarchate.

Clearly these statements below show a different Orthodoxy that what is being promoted by Pravoslav09 and the articles he is posting.

Included is my link to the link to the 1968 Greek Archdiocese yearbook listing showing they are in communion with ROCOR.

Also at the bottom of this list is a very good question that no doubt is impossible for Pravoslav09 to answer as it shows a serious flaw in his logic.

+ + + + +

Metropolitan Anastassy, the second First Hierarch of the Russsian Church Abroad, Council of Bishops in 1953:

"Do we recognize as a matter of principle the validity of the ordinations of the current Patriarch and his bishops? Could we even call it into question? We would then have to declare the entire Church to be without the Mysteries.. [People] say that Patriarch Alexey sinned more than his predecessor. Whether he sinned more or sinned less, we do not deny his ordination . Much has been said about their apostasy. However, we must be careful. We can hardly make a direct accusation of apostasy. Nowhere have they approved of atheism. In their printed homilies they strive to hew to an Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures with respect to the renovationists, and they did not break their ties with Patriarch Tikhon. The false policies pertains to the Church authorities and responsibility for them falls upon its leadership. In this case, the people do not answer for the course of the leadership, and the entire Church, as such, remains incorrupt . No one dares state that the entire Church is without grace, but inasmuch as the priests had contact with a sly dissembling hierarchy, they themselves dissembled, acting against their own conscience, and were in need of repentance."

********

ROCOR Synod , 14/27 September 1961:

"Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a great mistake. Nevertheless, her policy was always to keep spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches who accepted the new calendar as long as they celebrated Pascha according to the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic and did not break spiritual communion with them."

*********

ROCOR Synod, 3 October 1961:

Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar to be a mistake. Nevertheless... we never broke spiritual communion with the canonical Churches in which the new calendar had been introduced."

******

Met. Philaret and ROCOR Synod, 12/27 September, 1974

"Concerning the question of the presence or absence of grace among the new calendarists the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad does not consider herself or any other Local Church to have the right to make a conclusive decision, since a categorical evaluation in this question can be undertaken only by a properly convened, competent Ecumenical Council, with the obligatory participation of the free Church of Russia."

Worth noting: Actually ROCOR could not have considered New Calendarists "graceless" seeing as for 40 years - from 1957 to 1999 - the new calendrist Annunciation Church in Montreal, headed by her rector the V. Rev. Dr. Peter Popescu, was under Metropolitan Vitaly.

*******

Archbishop Antony, Encyclical to Pastors and Flock in 1986:

"Blind fanatics and foolish zealots may be dissatisfied only with the fact that our hierarchs have never asserted that the Moscow Patriarchate is graceless, bereft of the grace of God; because of that, we always received bishops and priests coming into our Church from the Moscow Patriarchate in their existing rank. We believe and know that God's love continues to be with the Christians of our much-suffering homeland, even with those who seek it in the clergy officially recognized by the regime and in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate."

******

Metropolitan Vitaly, Nativity Epistle of 1986:

"At the present time, the majority of the Local Churches are shaken in all their organism by a terrible double blow: the new calendar and ecumenism. But even in this sorrowful state of theirs we do not dare, and may the Lord save us from this, say that they have lost their grace. We proclaimed an anathema against ecumenism only for the children of our Church, but by this we very humbly but firmly, gently but decisively, as if to invite the Local Churches to stop and think. This is the role of our most small, humble, half-persecuted, always alert, but true Church. We, de facto , do not serve with either new-calendarists or ecumenists, but if someone of our clergy, by economy , would presume to such a concelebration, this fact alone in no way influences our standing in the truth."

* * * * *

1968 Year Book of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. It says very clearly that it is in communion with the Russian Church Abroad.

If the canonical succession was broken after Metr. Sergiy usurped power and joined the Soviets, what happened after ROCOR joined the founders of the Ecumenist World Council of Churches, i.e., the Greek Archdiocese of North America and the Patriarchate of Constantinople?

The multiple aspects of the Apostasy of ROCOR - A brief history of one the apostate ROCOR Churches, known as ROCOR(RTOC) and as ROCOR(T).

In conclusion, it is important to understand two major principles which have guided the Church since Pentecost.

The first is the notion of ecclesiastical subordination. The fullness of Divine Grace in the Church reposes in the persons of the bishops, who through the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession both receive and transmit Divine Grace from one generation of bishops to the next. The nature of the episcopacy is collegial, where each bishop ministers in agreement with his peers and does nothing individually to disrupt the harmony of the Church. In the Russian Church this is referred to as ‘sobornost’. Within this collegial system each bishop has his own duties and responsibilities, but he is also responsible to all the other bishops for his actions so as not to disturb the concord of the Church or cause schism.

Consequently, each bishop administers his diocese within the rules of common practice, but is responsible to his brother bishops who form the ‘synod’ or ‘council’ of the region or jurisdiction to which he belongs. Each bishop swears an oath at his consecration to uphold the unity of the Church and to leave the authority, to which he is bound by his oath of loyalty without a proper document of release, is an act in contravention of the canons (rules) of the Church, i.e. uncanonical. The punishment for such a violation is to be banned from performing any priestly function until the uncanonical act is expunged through repentance. However, if the bishop ignores the ban and continues to function uncanonically then he is subject to being judged by his peers and deposed, i.e. being defrocked. The same may be said of priests and deacons who uncanonically leave the jurisdiction of their bishop to whom they are bound by their priestly oath of allegiance. They too are subject to interdict and, in the case of continued incalcitrance, defrocking. In the matter of subordination to the norms of the Church there is one standard to all three levels of the priesthood. No individual, patriarch, bishop, priest, deacon or lay person is above the unity of the Church.

Secondly, the concept of schism in the Church is contrary to collegial church governance and in the words of the Holy Fathers is seen to be “a rendering of the Robe of Our Lord.” St John Chrysostom declares that “the sin of schism cannot be washed away even by the blood of martyrdom.” Hence, any schisms which appear in the Church are always uncanonical; they cannot be justified by personal opinion or self justification.

Those who have joined the “Suzdalites,” the “Lazarites,” the Mansonvillians, and now the “Russian True Orthodox Church” of the “Tikhonites” have all fallen away from the canonical Russian Church. They have done so because they have scorned their oaths of obedience and fidelity given at their consecrations or ordinations and have thus rendered the Robe of Christ. Their sin is all the more great because they have led some of Christ’s flock into schism also. The truly sad thing is that many lay people are innocent souls who have placed their trust in unworthy men and may find themselves outside the salvific Grace of the Holy Church.

The devil sows dissent and controversy in the Church to snare as many souls as possible. In such times clear minds and stout hearts are needed to ensure the unity of the Church. The simple measure of what is right and what is wrong can be found in whether one is drawn into leaving the jurisdiction of the bishop and looking for new, often exotic, spurious alternatives.

If one’s actions take a person outside the Church then that person is outside the Church. There is no alternative. There is no shopping list of churches. There is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Some people might express doubt concerning the declaration that there is *one* Church. There seem to be squabbles between the Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, in Moldova, and in Estonia, for example. And there seem to be differences in belief on certain issues, such as the calendar question, birth control, or the existence of eternal punishment in hell, for example.

Some people might express doubt concerning the declaration that there is *one* Church. There seem to be squabbles between the Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, in Moldova, and in Estonia, for example.

Yes, there have always been quarrels between the Churches, although it is not a constant condition of Church life, thank God. Prior to the schism we saw the longstanding quarrel between the Church of Rome and the Churches of the East. Not desirable of course. And the time of the Western Schism or Papal Schism when the Roman Catholic Church was split into three rival segments each headed by its own Pope! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism

Quote

And there seem to be differences in belief on certain issues, such as the calendar question,

An issue which is purely peripheral though and does not touch on the faith.

Only four Catholic countries (Spain, Portugal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and most of Italy) adopted the new calendar on the date specified by the Pope's Bull, 15 October 1582.

Other countries did not adopt it. The situation was similar to what we see among the Orthodox Churches at the present time.

Catholic Ireland did not adopt the new Calendar for another 200 years, in 1752. When Rome was celebrating Christmas on 25 December, Ireland was completely out of synch and celebrating it 2 weeks later on 6 January. ~ a situation the same as that prevailing in Orthodoxy today.

Quote

birth control

I am not aware of any real difference among our Churches on birth control. All allow non-abortive contraception when sufficiently grave reasons exist.

Quote

the existence of eternal punishment in hell

Hell is eternal. The punishment is eternal.

These are not the questions.

The question is: can we say for sure that any human is there for eternity? I like the words of Saint Maximus the Confessor, who said of it, "One should pray that Apokatastasis (universal salvation) is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine."

Some people might express doubt concerning the declaration that there is *one* Church. There seem to be squabbles between the Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, in Moldova, and in Estonia, for example.

Yes, there have always been quarrels between the Churches, although it is not a constant condition of Church life, thank God.

but no reason to silence Pravoslav09 by locking this thread as LBK suggested we do...

I also see no purpose in locking the thread. Sadly the harm has been done now and it cannot be undone. Irrespective of whether or not the thread is locked the false information is now in the archive of the Forum. It will probably appear as a link at the bottom of future threads on ROCOR. It sits there like a time bomb ready to cause harm to the salvation of innocent enquirers into Orthodoxy who may be moved to doubt about the Russian Church and the Church in general.

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

"Love" and "fraternal union", World Revolution and perestroika

The main leader and agitator of The Living Church, a “priest” of non-Orthodox origin, first a reformer and member of the same circles as Sergii Stragorodsky, then a Bolshevik collaborator, A. Vvedensky, wrote words that are sadly familiar to us as we witness a similar enticement to join the official false «church» - a Stalinist organization known under the guise of the «Mother Church» - ever since its inception, relentlessly trying to lure the naïve and uninformed to union. After all, as they say, to unite in Brotherhood is the “Christian thing” to do!

О если бы мы все слились в единой порыве любви и братства! Тогда как сон, миновал бы этот постыдный паралич церкви. Свободная церковь в свободной России согревала бы, как ясное, яркое солнце, всех- добрых и злых как говорил о том наш Господь. (O if only we could all merge in an upsurge of love and brotherhood! Then as in a dream, this paralysis of the church would end. The free church in a free {sic!] Russia would warm like the bright sun, all - the good and the bad, as spoke about this our Lord.)

*Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury- he was a pro-Soviet in Great Britain, he even wrote a book which I read a long time ago, Christianity and Communism, and in it, he tried to prove that there was no essential difference [Why then were millions of Christians exterminated?] Christians have to be communists, this is part of God’s bequest for us, part of His heritage. He said that the atheistic nature of Soviet Communism does not necessarily contradict the Christian values, in fact, there is a lot in common. And this is precisely what the ROC preached across the world “We have to forget our differences!”

Let us recall the real intentions behind the "love and brotherhood":

Протокол #64-14 февраля 1925 года. Постановили: Открытые с разрешения Ленинградского Губисполкома две Богословских академии (тихоновская и обновленческая) соединить в одну обновленческую академию, о чем поручить т. Тучкову [ответсвенный за убийство тысячей Православных] снестись с Ленинградом. (Protocol No. 64. 14 February 1925. Resolution: To open with the permission of the Leningrad Gubispolkom two Theological Academies (one Tikhonite and the other renovationist), and then combine them together into one renovationist academy, to be taken care of by Tuchkov [responsible for the murder of thousands of Orthodox] in conjunction with Leningrad [The State, which will take care of the murders.)

World Revolution has always been the end goal of Marxism-Leninism and creating dissension, division, conflicts and schisms have always served as tools for the destruction of its most hated enemy, religion, especially Russian Orthodoxy.

Какова политика советской власти по отношению к церковному расколу? Раскол в церкви выгоден [рабоче-крестянской] власти, ибо это ведет к ослаблению ея врагов, к победе революции (What is the policy of the Soviet regime towards the church schism? The schism in the church is beneficial for the [worker-peasant] powerful, since it leads to the weakening of its enemies, thus to the triumph of the revolution.)

But one might say, these are not the 1920s, how can there be any mention of destruction of religion now that there is “freedom of religion” in Russia, now that “communism is over,” now that the “Soviet USSR has been abolished.” The mastermind of perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev made sure that before proceeding with one of the greatest travesties in history, he first put firmly in place his «Long-Term Program of Atheistic Education of the USSR», then finally in November 1987, he stated to his Politburo:

Perestroika is no retreat from Communism but rather a step toward the final realization of Marxist-Leninist utopia: a continuation of Lenin's ideas. Those who expect us to give up communism will be disappointed. In October 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road. Perestroika is a continuation of the October Revolution.

To which President George Bush, in his Address of November 22, 1989, responded:

«There is no greater advocate of perestroika than the President of the United States!» thus establishing a smooth “convergence” of communism and democracy, which in Lenin’s agitation days, were used interchangeably. There was little or no differentiation between labels such as народники (populists) who were also called демократы (democrats), радикалы (radicals), либералы (liberals), социал демократы (social democrats), социал революционеры (social revolutionaries), etc. as they were all part of the opposition or освободительное движение, which in the West eventually became known as socialism, communism and internationalism. Much time is wasted needlessly to differentiate them. Here is what the Bolsheviks and their leaders had to say about such labels:

У нас есть класс, способный мгновенно разнести революцию по всем концам России!», they boasted. «Этот класс известен в радикальском мире под кличкой «либералов»…может он и станет таковым со временем, как предсказывает наш «Социал-Демократ». Наши либералы соответствуют французским радикалам. На самом деле они более радикальны… Либерал, хотя бы и более умеренных взглядов, вступивший в конспирацию и бросивший оседлость, станет тотчас же «радикалом» (We have a class, capable of promptly proliferating the revolution to all the corners of Russia! This class is famous in the radical world under the name of “liberals.” Maybe it shall become so with time, as predicted by the “Social Democrat.” Our liberals correspond to the French radicals. In reality, they are more radical… A liberal, although he holds more moderate views, if he joins the conspiracy [sic!] and throws off his normal way of life, will immediately become a «radical».

*I see communism and democracy as two modus operandi of the same revolution, which started in France, and spread all over the world, this is why I group them using the terms revolutionary and liberal. Pravoslav09

As noted by a Social Revolutionary, the ability to undergo transformation and adapt to the times, was important in communist ideology:

Поведение г. Струве, приспособляемости который сумел раньше воспринять все внешния формы социалдемократическаго учения, а теперь так же воспринял либеральный катехизи… Kак вам понравится следующее местечко из современных писаний г. Струве: 'Если православие вообще может воскреснуть в новой жизни, то для этого ему нужно прежде всего признать право на существование за своим духовным противником, за новым религиозным сознанием'» (Struve's behavior - being able to adjust - his ability in earlier years to absorbb all the external forms of social democratic teachings, and now to be able to perceive the liberal catechism… How do you like the following spot in the contemporary writings of Struve: If Orthodoxy can be at all resurrected in the new life [under communism], then for it will first of all, have to fight for the right for existence with his sacred enemy, the new religious consciousness”.)

Interesting, considering that as an émigré to the West, Struve became known as a “religious” writer. Struve is also famous for his “Manifesto” against the Tsar and for promoting renovationist [i.e.ecumenist] “reforms” in Orthodoxy. Christians have been blinded by one of his descendants, Nikita Struve, who wrote the disgraceful Christians in Contemporary Russia, in which he approved the activities of Patriarch Sergius, even going as far as comparing him with St. Sergius of Radonezh, and this in the 1960s, during some of the worst years of persecution of the faithful in the Soviet Union.

One of the main accomplishments of perestroika was to put people to sleep and, especially, not to have to account for the tens of millions killed (in Russia alone), something that was becoming too obvious due to the documentation that was slowly beginning to leak out. Let the world forget the atrocities of Communism, is the motto, somehow it must be quickly erased or at leased minimized. Yet, let us not forget what this appeasement policy led to- such massacres as the one on Tienanmen Square in Communist China where thousands were killed as well as massacres in Kuwait, Lithuania and Latvia. In his November 1987 speech to the Politburo, Gorbachev continues:

“Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost*’ and democracy. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no serious internal change in the USSR other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm America and let them fall asleep. We want to accomplish three things - 1) the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe, 2) the Americans to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe, and 3) the Americans to stop proceeding with the SDI”

*Glasnost is a term referring mainly to political change and aperture, while perestroika refers mainly to change and aperture in the economical and social areas. Ed. Note

Dear folks, again, please understand that for a moderator, it is an exceedingly difficult task to accommodate EVERYONE'S idea of just what is the "spirit" of schism and error. One apparently wrong approach to handling the highly controversial issues like the one at hand is to silence one of the debating sides and to provide the arena only for the other. May the Lord be with us all and may He forgive us all of our very imperfect understanding of how His true Church should live. --Heorhij, mod., your unworthy and very incompetent servant

An issue which is purely peripheral though and does not touch on the faith.

Hell is eternal. The punishment is eternal.

These are not the questions.

The question is: can we say for sure that any human is there for eternity? I like the words of Saint Maximus the Confessor, who said of it, "One should pray that Apokatastasis (universal salvation) is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine."

The question was what is meant by there being *one* Church, since there appear to be serious differences on certain questions such as the calendar and the Apokastasis?The calendar issue is thought to have theological implications by some, is it not?And how can some believe in Apokatastasis, whereas others say that this belief was condemned by an Ecumenical Council? Further, reading through the discussions in this thread gives the impression that there are other serious differences between the Orthodox faithful.

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

One of the main accomplishments of perestroika was to put people to sleep and, especially, not to have to account for the tens of millions killed (in Russia alone), something that was becoming too obvious due to the documentation that was slowly beginning to leak out. Let the world forget the atrocities of Communism, is the motto, somehow it must be quickly erased or at leased minimized.

Dear Pravoslav09,

Another of Dolskaya's errors!

The world may be forgetting, you may be forgetting, Dolskaya may be forgetting. But the Russian Orthodox Church is not forgetting. It is ensuring that the Russian faithful do not forget and across Russia it is raising holy shrines and churches in memory of the holy martyrs of the Soviet period. They shall NEVER be forgetten.

Here is one such church at Butovo, consecrated 2 years ago by the Patriarch.

[The calendar issue is thought to have theological implications by some, is it not?

Theological implications?

Quote

And how can some believe in Apokatastasis, whereas others say that this belief was condemned by an Ecumenical Council?

In neither of our Churches are we obliged to say that there are human souls in hell. But in both Churches we are forbidden to deny the possibility.

Quote

Further, reading through the discussions in this thread gives the impression that there are other serious differences between the Orthodox faithful.

To be dreadfully honest with you, I would agree with Fr Michael Protopopov's final sentence. Those who are in schism are not part of the Church. And this is of course Pravoslav09's major point and the whole point of this thread - that because the Russian Zarist Church is the true Russian Church the rest of us are in apostasy.

But the canonical Church is often lenient in the first stages of schism, hoping that a charitable leniency will assist in bringing people back to the Church.

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

One of the main accomplishments of perestroika was to put people to sleep and, especially, not to have to account for the tens of millions killed (in Russia alone), something that was becoming too obvious due to the documentation that was slowly beginning to leak out. Let the world forget the atrocities of Communism, is the motto, somehow it must be quickly erased or at leased minimized.

One of the icons of the Holy Martyrs of Butovo, very popular among the Russian people.

To add to Irish Hermit's ample evidence supporting the open and ongoing veneration of the New Martyrs and Confessors, there is a very comprehensive website, established with the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate, dedicated entirely to the memory of these saints. There is a calendar listing their commemorations, downloadable books of collections of their lives, icons, official documents of their glorification issued by the Patriarchate, documents from Soviet archives chronicling their dealings with the Soviet authorities, including the NKVD, liturgical texts and much more. The site is at http://www.fond.ru/index.shtml.

Surely this site alone exposes the arrant nonsense contained in Olga Dolskaya's "thesis".

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Some people might express doubt concerning the declaration that there is *one* Church. There seem to be squabbles between the Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, in Moldova, and in Estonia, for example. And there seem to be differences in belief on certain issues, such as the calendar question, birth control, or the existence of eternal punishment in hell, for example.

Laying aside questions of the Great Western Schism, with its three supreme pontiffs and separate colleges of cardinals, and similar situations in the West, and the Old Catholics, SSPX and other groups, and how united, say, your American church is to the Vatican, then there are the issues between the "Ukrainian Catholic Church" over the existence of the "Ruthenian Catholic Church," the three Patriarchs of Antioch you have (down from four) and the two in Alexandria, and the whole spectrum of how much Latin theology the "sui juris" churches have to adopt....well, you have plenty on your hands to worry about that you need not worry about our "squabbles."

Why you would want to remove the specks of difference in belief from our eyes is beyond me. I saw a prominent "journalist" yesterday talk how she is a pro-choice Catholic, and how monolithic is the Vatican's followers over birth control....As to the calendar, I can show you the two Ukrainian cathedrals here, one for old calendar, split off the one that went new calendar.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Some people might express doubt concerning the declaration that there is *one* Church. There seem to be squabbles between the Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, in Moldova, and in Estonia, for example. And there seem to be differences in belief on certain issues, such as the calendar question, birth control, or the existence of eternal punishment in hell, for example.

Laying aside questions of the Great Western Schism, with its three supreme pontiffs and separate colleges of cardinals, and similar situations in the West, and the Old Catholics, SSPX and other groups, and how united, say, your American church is to the Vatican, then there are the issues between the "Ukrainian Catholic Church" over the existence of the "Ruthenian Catholic Church," the three Patriarchs of Antioch you have (down from four) and the two in Alexandria, and the whole spectrum of how much Latin theology the "sui juris" churches have to adopt....well, you have plenty on your hands to worry about that you need not worry about our "squabbles."

Why you would want to remove the specks of difference in belief from our eyes is beyond me. I saw a prominent "journalist" yesterday talk how she is a pro-choice Catholic, and how monolithic is the Vatican's followers over birth control....As to the calendar, I can show you the two Ukrainian cathedrals here, one for old calendar, split off the one that went new calendar.

You are making an unwarranted assumption here. I have posed similar questions on the meaning of “one Church” at CAF.

To add to Irish Hermit's ample evidence supporting the open and ongoing veneration of the New Martyrs and Confessors, there is a very comprehensive website, established with the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate, dedicated entirely to the memory of these saints. There is a calendar listing their commemorations, downloadable books of collections of their lives, icons, official documents of their glorification issued by the Patriarchate, documents from Soviet archives chronicling their dealings with the Soviet authorities, including the NKVD, liturgical texts and much more. The site is at http://www.fond.ru/index.shtml.

Surely this site alone exposes the arrant nonsense contained in Olga Dolskaya's "thesis".

Anyone know who the hell she is? Because we know who she thinks she is. Matthew 7:1-5, James 4:11.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Some people might express doubt concerning the declaration that there is *one* Church. There seem to be squabbles between the Russian Orthodox Church and other Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, in Moldova, and in Estonia, for example. And there seem to be differences in belief on certain issues, such as the calendar question, birth control, or the existence of eternal punishment in hell, for example.

Laying aside questions of the Great Western Schism, with its three supreme pontiffs and separate colleges of cardinals, and similar situations in the West, and the Old Catholics, SSPX and other groups, and how united, say, your American church is to the Vatican, then there are the issues between the "Ukrainian Catholic Church" over the existence of the "Ruthenian Catholic Church," the three Patriarchs of Antioch you have (down from four) and the two in Alexandria, and the whole spectrum of how much Latin theology the "sui juris" churches have to adopt....well, you have plenty on your hands to worry about that you need not worry about our "squabbles."

Why you would want to remove the specks of difference in belief from our eyes is beyond me. I saw a prominent "journalist" yesterday talk how she is a pro-choice Catholic, and how monolithic is the Vatican's followers over birth control....As to the calendar, I can show you the two Ukrainian cathedrals here, one for old calendar, split off the one that went new calendar.

You are making an unwarranted assumption here. I have posed similar questions on the meaning of “one Church” at CAF.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

To add to Irish Hermit's ample evidence supporting the open and ongoing veneration of the New Martyrs and Confessors, there is a very comprehensive website, established with the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate, dedicated entirely to the memory of these saints. There is a calendar listing their commemorations, downloadable books of collections of their lives, icons, official documents of their glorification issued by the Patriarchate, documents from Soviet archives chronicling their dealings with the Soviet authorities, including the NKVD, liturgical texts and much more. The site is at http://www.fond.ru/index.shtml.

Surely this site alone exposes the arrant nonsense contained in Olga Dolskaya's "thesis".

Anyone know who the hell she is? Because we know who she thinks she is. Matthew 7:1-5, James 4:11.

Dear folks, again, please understand that for a moderator, it is an exceedingly difficult task to accommodate EVERYONE'S idea of just what is the "spirit" of schism and error. One apparently wrong approach to handling the highly controversial issues like the one at hand is to silence one of the debating sides and to provide the arena only for the other. May the Lord be with us all and may He forgive us all of our very imperfect understanding of how His true Church should live. --Heorhij, mod., your unworthy and very incompetent servant

That relates directly to the point I tried to make, Heorhij. Pravoslav is NOT debating. He refuses to answer questions put to him and simply posts his views from a soapbox as it were. And I might add, I've yet to see a single person agree with his peculiar take on history. As Fr Ambrose has stated, great damage can be accomplished if lies and distortions are allowed to remain unchallenged. In truth, Pravoslav should have been cautioned when he posted slanderous descriptives of the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate. But that horse is out of the corral now and there's no putting it back since the damage is there for all to see. No debate is taking place that I can see.

To add to Irish Hermit's ample evidence supporting the open and ongoing veneration of the New Martyrs and Confessors, there is a very comprehensive website, established with the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate, dedicated entirely to the memory of these saints. There is a calendar listing their commemorations, downloadable books of collections of their lives, icons, official documents of their glorification issued by the Patriarchate, documents from Soviet archives chronicling their dealings with the Soviet authorities, including the NKVD, liturgical texts and much more. The site is at http://www.fond.ru/index.shtml.

Surely this site alone exposes the arrant nonsense contained in Olga Dolskaya's "thesis".

Anyone know who the hell she is? Because we know who she thinks she is. Matthew 7:1-5, James 4:11.

You mean you?

No. Proverbs 31:9.

Miss Olga sees fit to spit on the Neo-Martyrs and Confessors under the Bolshevik yoke. Numbers 12; Jude 8-15.

Are you so naive to think that she believes Satan has no Ukrainian spawn? That is, if she believes Ukrainians exist....

« Last Edit: June 13, 2009, 10:46:20 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

To add to Irish Hermit's ample evidence supporting the open and ongoing veneration of the New Martyrs and Confessors, there is a very comprehensive website, established with the blessing of the Moscow Patriarchate, dedicated entirely to the memory of these saints. There is a calendar listing their commemorations, downloadable books of collections of their lives, icons, official documents of their glorification issued by the Patriarchate, documents from Soviet archives chronicling their dealings with the Soviet authorities, including the NKVD, liturgical texts and much more. The site is at http://www.fond.ru/index.shtml.

Surely this site alone exposes the arrant nonsense contained in Olga Dolskaya's "thesis".

Anyone know who the hell she is? Because we know who she thinks she is. Matthew 7:1-5, James 4:11.

You mean you?

No. Proverbs 31:9.

But you referred to Scriptural passages that admonished us to look at ourselves, first and foremost, and to abstain from maligning our brothers and sisters, whichever position of viewpoint they might have, no?

If every single one of us decides, on his/her own, just what the Proverbs 31:9's "just" judment is - why would the Logos become flesh and lived among us, after all, and why would He say, "do not judge?"

[The calendar issue is thought to have theological implications by some, is it not?

Theological implications?

Well, I know already that other Churches have problems with what is the correct understanding of "one Church", but it was just a simple question on how the Orthodox Church views unity and the concept of "one Church". As far as the calendar issue having theological implications and dividing the Church, I was reading that in 1935, three Metropolitans, Germanos of Demetrias, the former Metropolitan of Florina, Chrysostom (Kavouridis) and Chrysostomos (Demetriou) of Zakynthos declared:

"Those who now administer the Church of Greece have divided the unity of Orthodoxy through the calendar innovation, and have split the Greek Orthodox People into two opposing calendar parts. They have not only violated an Ecclesiastical Tradition which was consecrated by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and sanctioned by the age-old practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but have also touched the Dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/92_NEW_ZION_IN_BABYLON_PART_3.pdfp. 92

Dear folks, again, please understand that for a moderator, it is an exceedingly difficult task to accommodate EVERYONE'S idea of just what is the "spirit" of schism and error. One apparently wrong approach to handling the highly controversial issues like the one at hand is to silence one of the debating sides and to provide the arena only for the other. May the Lord be with us all and may He forgive us all of our very imperfect understanding of how His true Church should live. --Heorhij, mod., your unworthy and very incompetent servant

That relates directly to the point I tried to make, Heorhij. Pravoslav is NOT debating. He refuses to answer questions put to him and simply posts his views from a soapbox as it were. And I might add, I've yet to see a single person agree with his peculiar take on history. As Fr Ambrose has stated, great damage can be accomplished if lies and distortions are allowed to remain unchallenged. In truth, Pravoslav should have been cautioned when he posted slanderous descriptives of the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate. But that horse is out of the corral now and there's no putting it back since the damage is there for all to see. No debate is taking place that I can see.

I am then locking this thread. Ialmisry, please feel free to address the issues we touched in our exchange at the end of this thread in a separate thread. Pravoslav09, please, if you plan to re-open the thread, raising again the issues you have risen in this thread, do consider what was mentioned in this thread! Do answer the questions others pose, and do argue with specific points made by others, rather than just copy-paste long "propagandistic" articles published somewhere, even if you respect or admire their authors. After all, this is meant to be a discussion forum where people are entitled not only to their opinions but also to the specific, point-by-point answers to the questions they ask. --Heorhij, an unworthy and incompetent servant of all participants in the discussions on this section of the OC.net forum

Surely this site alone exposes the arrant nonsense contained in Olga Dolskaya's "thesis".

Anyone know who the hell she is? Because we know who she thinks she is. Matthew 7:1-5, James 4:11.[/quote]

Quote

If every single one of us decides, on his/her own, just what the Proverbs 31:9's "just" judment is - why would the Logos become flesh and lived among us, after all, and why would He say, "do not judge?"

There are so many things which we must judge. This entire thread is actually an act of judgement by Dolskaya and Pravoslav09 against the Russian Church Abroad. Just like them we too must judge. Is the Russian Church Abroad apostate or not? Is it beneficial or dangerous for our salvation?

There are so many things which we must judge. This entire thread is actually an act of judgement by Dolskaya and Pravoslav09 against the Russian Church Abroad. Just like them we too must judge. Is the Russian Church Abroad apostate or not? Is it beneficial or dangerous for our salvation?

Father, please address these issues in a separate thread, as this one is locked by me, because of the concerns expressed above. Thank you.